economic restructuring in the northeast: nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf ·...

25
Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast: 1950-1990 by Stephen M. Smith and Kathleen Miller October, 2002 Rural Development Paper No. 13 ©2002 The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development Located at: The Pennsylvania State University 7 Armsby Building, University Park, PA 168602-5602 Phone: 814-863-4656 FAX: 814-863-0586 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu “Contributing to the well-being of small towns and rural communities.

Upload: others

Post on 09-Jul-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro

Northeast: 1950-1990 by Stephen M. Smith and Kathleen Miller

October, 2002

Rural Development Paper No. 13

©2002 The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Located at: The Pennsylvania State University

7 Armsby Building, University Park, PA 168602-5602

Phone: 814-863-4656 FAX: 814-863-0586

E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu

“Contributing to the well-being of small towns and rural communities.”

Page 2: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

*Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn State University, University Park, PA;and Program Director, Rural Policy Research Institute, University of Missouri-Columbia. This research was partiallysupported by funding from the National Research Initiative, USDA.

Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast: 1950-1990Stephen M. Smith and Kathleen Miller*

Abstract: Changes in the economic structure of rural America have caused continuing concern aboutthe ability of rural areas to maintain an employment base and viable, dynamic economies. Thisstudy finds that the vast majority of Northeast nonmetro counties had both employment and incomegrowth throughout the 1950-1990 period. Counties that were most likely to be successful underwentshifts from traditional resource and manufacturing economies to service and diversified structures.While the results support previous research showing that economies which do not shift to growingindustrial sectors will fall behind, a key result is the importance of a diversified economy.

I. INTRODUCTION

The impacts of changes in the economic structure in rural America from agriculture andnatural resources to manufacturing, and currently to services, have been the overriding theme inrural areas since the 1950s. These well-documented changes seem to strike relentlessly at theeconomic bases of rural areas. After a brief respite in the 1970s, secular decline returned in the1980s, and remained problematic through the early 1990s (Reid and Long 1988; Falk and Lyson1991; Henry 1993). Historically, the "rural problem" has stemmed from the long run decline inagriculture and other natural resource-based industries, on which rural economies initially werebased. While this trend continued in the 1980s (Economic Research Service 1993), the nature of therural economy had changed sufficiently that the principal cause of economic stress in much ofnonmetropolitan America in the 1980s was attributed to the poor performance of ruralmanufacturing (Brown and Deavers 1988; Long 1988; Reid and Long 1988). At the same time,another major structural shift was taking place. From 1975 to 1989, 89 percent of the netemployment growth in nonmetropolitan counties was in service-producing industries. By 1989, two-thirds of the employment in nonmetro counties was in these industries (Smith 1993).

Transitions in economic structure are a natural product of economic change, to which allsocieties must adapt (Fisher 1935; Kuznets 1966; Singlemann 1978). The continuing concern -- inthe rural communities, by government at all levels, and in academic studies -- is about the abilityof rural areas to successfully adjust to these changes in economic structure; to maintain anemployment base and a viable and dynamic economy (Drabenstott and Smith 1995). Previous workhas documented the broad shifts in county industrial structure from extractive industries tomanufacturing and later to service industries (Bender et al. 1985; Cook and Hady 1993). Thesestudies, however, did not examine the particular adjustment patterns that took place, the extent towhich these adjustments resulted in maintaining the employment and income base, and what factorsmay be related to a “successful” adjustment.

Page 3: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

1Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.

2For example, by 1950 only 5.2 percent of Northeast employment was in agriculture, vs. 18.3, 28.6, and 15.6 percentin the North Central, South, and West regions, respectively (Taylor 1983). In nonmetro counties in 1970, the traditionalrural resource-based industries of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and mining made up only 5.2 percent of total Northeastnonmetro employment vs. 13.2, 10.5, and 13.7 percent in the other regions (Hines, Brown and Zimmer 1975).Furthermore, nonmetro manufacturing, the industry that replaced much of the lost nonmetro extractive employment from1950-1980, declined by 15 percent in the Northeast during the 1980s, vs. a 0.8 percent decline in the Midwest andincreases in the other regions (Economic Research Service 1993).

2

The Northeast United States1 provides a particularly good case study of these adjustments,as the region began the transition from an agricultural base earlier, and has undergone the range ofstructural change more completely than other regions2. Following World War II, extractiveindustries were replaced by manufacturing as the dominant employer of the rural Northeast. In 1950,only 53 of the 177 nonmetro counties (1974 Beale code definition) could be considered specializedin agriculture (Kreahling 1994). By the 1970s, no Northeast nonmetro counties were dependent onagriculture, and manufacturing dominated (Bender et al. 1985; Kreahling 1994). During the 1970'sand early 1980's, however, much of this manufacturing employment was lost to other regions andother countries. The Northeast was the only region during the 1970s to show a decrease inmanufacturing employment (Taylor 1983). Manufacturing employment between 1970 and 1990declined dramatically, while service employment grew. The downward trend in manufacturing isexpected to continue in the Northeast, contrary to the rest of the nation (Crandall 1993). Thesetransitions affected rural areas in different ways; some communities adapted to these changes, whileothers experienced continuous economic stress.

The purpose of this study is to examine the specific types of economic transitions thatoccurred from 1950 to 1990 in nonmetropolitan counties in the Northeast, and to determine the rolethese transitions and other factors played in whether or not counties successfully adapted. There aretwo specific research objectives. The first is to identify the specific types of economic transitionsthat occurred. The transitions will be identified through an examination of how the countyemployment structure changed from 1950 to 1970 and 1970 to 1990. The second objective is to useregression analysis to determine factors related to the success that rural Northeast counties had inadapting to the economic transitions. A definition of success is developed, based on changes inemployment and income in the counties over the 40-year period.

II. THE CONTEXT: CHANGING ECONOMIC STRUCTURE

Three issues form the context, or motivation, for this study. One derives from the historicalliterature on the structural changes in national economies, and implications for economic progress.The second is a more pragmatic, “grassroots” concern with transitions away from traditional ruraleconomic bases, and the commonly-perceived negative effects of these changes on ruralemployment and income. A third is the influence of a diversified economic structure on theeconomic welfare of rural areas.

The structural shifts of national economies, with international comparisons, has been a topicfor decades among those concerned with economic change and growth. Early investigation was by

Page 4: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

3

A.G.B. Fisher (1935) and Colin Clark (1940), who classified economies into primary, secondary andtertiary sectors. The primary sector is composed of agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining; thesecondary of manufacturing, construction and utilities; and the tertiary of the wide spectrum ofservice industries. In the course of economic development it is assumed that there is a sequentialshift of employment from agriculture and other extractive industries to manufacturing, and finallyto services (Singlemann 1978). According to Fisher, the shifts of employment toward secondaryand tertiary production are the inescapable reflection of economic progress. Clark found a firmlyestablished generalization within countries that a high average level of real income per head wasalways associated with a high proportion of the working population engaged in tertiary (services)industries.

Kuznets (1966) and Singlemann (1978) extended this research to the post-World War IIindustrial economies. Kuznets states that modern economic growth is characterized by rapid shiftsin the industrial structure of product, and consequently by rapid shifts in shares of labor attached tovarious sectors (p. 493). These shifts are necessary to attain high rates of economic growth.Singlemann concurs, concluding that in advanced industrial countries after World War II, the levelof per capita income is primarily associated with an increase in the proportion employed in socialand producer services. Thus, the implication is that a "successful" modern economy is a positivefunction of shifts away from the previous structure, initially the extractive industries, and later awayfrom manufacturing.

The changes in economic structure documented at the national and international levels havebeen equally as great in rural areas of the United States. The structural transformations that havetaken place in rural economies over the past several decades have raised concern about the abilityof local economies to successfully adapt to changes; to maintain population, employment andincome levels. A constant focus is the extractive sectors of agriculture, mining and forestry, whichhistorically characterized rural economies. Employment in agriculture decreased approximately five-fold from 1950 to 1990, and mining employment, though fluctuating, has become a minuscule partof the rural economy (Mills 1995). Income in these sectors also has shown annual compound realrates of decrease in rural U.S. as a whole (Weber 1995). The changes occurring in the economiesof rural areas have influenced the movement of population into and out of nonmetro areas. Between1950 and 1970, over half of all nonmetro counties in the United States declined in population. Beale(1990) notes a relationship between population change and the dependence of an area on agricultureand mining. For example, 94 percent of the counties in the North Central Region with 50 percentor more of workers employed in agriculture or mining in 1960 witnessed population decreasesduring the 1960's. Beale found a 0.56 percentage point decline in population for every percentagepoint increment in employment in agriculture and mining. Conversely, during the same decade,population increased in the 84 percent of counties with less than 20 percent of workers employedin agriculture or mining.

Many rural communities found manufacturing to be a successful replacement for decliningextractive industry employment. The decentralization of manufacturing following World War IIcreated an abundance of job opportunities for rural residents displaced by declines in agriculture andother natural resource industry sectors (Barkley 1993). However, trends in manufacturingemployment reversed after the late 1970's. Many manufacturing firms relocated in other regions orother countries, and many rural workers were once again displaced. During the recession of the

Page 5: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

4

1980's, for example, rural areas, which accounted for about a quarter of all manufacturingemployment before the recession, absorbed half of all manufacturing job losses (Reed, 1989).

Service industries have been on the increase since the 1960's, possibly offering opportunitiesto rural workers displaced by declines in manufacturing employment (Smith 1993; Glasmeier andHowland 1995). Although service sector employment has grown considerably in nonmetro as wellas metro areas, the types of services growing in each region are quite different. Most of the servicesector growth in rural areas has been in low-wage and part-time jobs (Glasmeier and Howland1995). Porterfield (1990) shows that during the early 1980's, rural areas gained in lower-payingservice sectors, such as eating and drinking places and grocery stores, while losing in manufacturing,natural resources, and construction, which are relatively higher-paying sectors. Miller and Bluestone(1988) studied location quotients for 45 service industries, and found only 10 to be rural-oriented.These included primarily low-paying service sectors. Seven service industries were identified asubiquitous, and the remaining 28 were identified as urban and large urban-oriented. The higher-paying services tend to agglomerate in urban areas, where an adequate market and specialized laborcan be found (Miller and Bluestone, 1988). This is also one of the main conclusions drawn byGlasmeier and Howland (1995). Thus, it appears that most rural residents are missing out on thegrowth of high-paying service jobs, and are left with few other opportunities.

Because employment opportunities are an important determinant of incomes, shifts in theindustrial structure of a rural economy also may have a direct influence on income levels. Contraryto the Fisher-Clark-Kuznets-Singlemann conclusions for nations as a whole, there is the perceptionthat the rise in service employment has affected rural incomes adversely, because rural services tendto be low-wage and/or part-time (Bloomquist et al. 1993; Gorham 1992; Lichter and McLaughlin1995). Tomaskovic-Devey (1987) studied the relationship between poverty rates and the structureof economic opportunity in South Carolina counties. He found that the volume of agricultural saleswas highly significant and positively related to poverty, while the proportion of employment inservice industries was found to be only slightly significant but positive. Williams (1991) found thatthe hypothesis that poverty is likely to be higher in the service sector is true only in comparison totransformative (manufacturing and construction) industries, not extractive industries. Thus, theincome impacts of the shift to services are somewhat ambiguous.

This leads to the third context for the paper – the role of a diversified economic structure.The need for and the impacts of diversification is a more recent focus of research. In nonmetro areasthe interest in economic diversification has increased because of unstable and generally decliningemployment opportunities in the traditional resource-based and manufacturing industries, uponwhich rural areas depend more heavily than metro areas.

The research on diversification has focused primarily on the link between regional economicwelfare (lower unemployment, increases in employment and income, and the stability of thosemeasures) and the diversity of the economic structure. The main theoretical context used has beenportfolio theory, where trade offs among those goals have been examined (Board and Sutliffe 1991;Brown and Pheasant 1985, 1987; Harper and St.Louis 1999; Lande 1994; Malizia and Ke 1993;Schoening and Sweeney 1992; Smith and Gibson 1988). Local development policy in this contextleads to a focus on an economic structure that meets both the goals of stability and growth. Theoverall conclusion of this literature is that the goals would be attained by maintaining a more diverseeconomic structure.

Page 6: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

3Other, but similar categorizations can be found in Bender et al. (1985) for the nation as a whole, and in Smith andGibson (1988) for a single state.

5

A key aspect of this literature that relates to the first two contexts presented above is that aneconomic structure that is both competitive and diverse is important (Malizia and Ke 1993). Thatis, the portfolio of industries must also include those that are growing. Diverse areas tend to havemore industries that can remain relatively healthy during difficult times and retain their employmentlevels. As change occurs, the presence of other industries allows workers losing jobs in decliningindustries to gain them in the newer, growing, more competitive industries.

III. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The study covers the 177 nonmetropolitan counties in the Northeast United States (1974Beale Code designation), which includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.Data were obtained from the Census of Population for 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990.

The first objective of this study is to identify and examine the economic transition patternsin each nonmetropolitan county of the region. A transition is defined as a shift in the dominantindustry of the county between census years, where the dominant industry is defined in terms of thepercent of total county employment in the industry. A county may have experienced one or moretransitions over a time period, or may have remained specialized in the same industry.

Five broad industry sectors were examined: (1) Agriculture, forestry and fisheries, (2)Mining, (3) Manufacturing, (4) Ubiquitous Services and (5) Producer Services. Aggregations in theCensus of Population did not allow a more detailed industrial classification. The 1980 and 1990Censuses only disaggregate manufacturing to durable and nondurable manufacturing. Agriculture,forestry, and fisheries are aggregated with mining in the 1980 Census. For 1980, then, employmentin each of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and in mining was calculated as the average of 1970and 1990 employment.

Although the Census does provide a more disaggregated classification of the services sector,only two groups of services are used in this study, ubiquitous and producer. Ubiquitous servicesinclude wholesale and retail trade; personal, entertainment and recreation services; health services;education services; and transportation, communications and public utilities. Producer servicesinclude finance, insurance and real estate; business and repair services; and professional and relatedservices. Such a classification, although still somewhat aggregated, will allow comparison withearlier research that found per capita incomes positively associated with shifts to producer services(Singlemann 1978).

Employment levels at which a county is considered specialized in an industry were selectedwith three criteria in mind. First, the employment level had to be sufficiently high to ensure that thecounty was indeed specialized in that industry sector. Second, there had to be a sufficient numberof counties specialized in the industry to permit statistical analysis. Third, overlaps betweenindustries were to be minimized. The employment specialization levels are as follows:3

Page 7: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

6

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 20 percent of total employmentMining 20 percent of total employmentManufacturing 25 percent of total employmentUbiquitous Services 50 percent of total employmentProducer Services 20 percent of total employment

The dominant industry in each county in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 was determined.Counties that did not meet the requirement for any of these five industry sectors were defined asdiversified. Counties that met the requirements for more than one industry were placed in theindustry with the higher percent of total employment.

The second objective of the study is to determine the relationship of type of economictransition undergone, plus certain county characteristics, to success in adapting to economictransitions. Success is measured by percent change in (1) total county employment, and (2) realmedian family income (in 1983 dollars). A “successful” county is defined as one that hasexperienced growth in either of these two measures equal to or greater than the mean percent changeof all nonmetro counties in the region. The mean percent change was chosen as the standard becauseall Northeast nonmetro counties had overall employment growth, and too few counties had incomedecreases to permit statistical analysis. Success is measured, therefore, relative to other nonmetrocounties in the region. Drabenstott and Smith (1995) recently have used this same definition ofsuccess in connection with their examination of rural economic change.

IV. PATTERNS OF ECONOMIC TRANSITIONS AND SUCCESS

Both employment and income measures are used because success in one may not necessarilyimply success in the other. As the economic structure changes, employment may increase in certainindustry sectors, but this may be in industries or jobs that pay less than the previous employmentsources. That is one of the concerns motivating research by Bloomquist et al. (1993), Drabenstottand Smith (1995), Gorham (1992), and Lichter and McLaughlin (1995). Thus, factors related to bothemployment and income success will be examined.

Table 1 shows that, in general, Northeast nonmetro counties could be termed to have adapted“successfully,” despite major structural changes and declines in the traditional economic bases ofagriculture, forestry, mining and manufacturing. These counties experienced impressive increasesin real median family income and employment from 1950 to 1990. Table 1 also shows, however,distinct differences both between the success measures and the 1950-1970 and 1970-1990 sub-periods. The mean percent change in real family income for all nonmetro counties in the Northeastwas 143.6 percent from 1950-1990. Most of this occurred during 1950-1970, when the increase was115.4 percent. The increase from 1970 to 1990 was only 12.3 percent. For counties both above andbelow the mean income change, average income changes were positive and strong for the entireperiod, and for 1950-1970. For 1970-1990, the average annual change in median real family incomewas 23.9 percent for counties above the mean. For counties below the mean, the average annual realincome change was only 2.3 percent.

Page 8: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

7

TABLE 1Mean Percent Change in Real Median Family Income (1983 dollars) and Total County Employment Among Northeast Nonmetro Counties

All Nonmetro Counties Nonmet. Co. Above Mean Nonmet. Co. Above Mean

Employment Income Employment Income Employment Income Employment

1950-1990 143.6%(n=177)

75.4%(n=177)

195.6%(n=74)

162.4%(n=67)

106.3%(n=103)

22.4%(n=110)

1950-1970 115.4(n=188)

11.4(n=177)

142.0(n=78)

34.6(n=85)

94.4(n=99)

-10.1(n=92)

1970-1990 12.3(n=177)

50.1(n=177)

23.9(n=82)

85.4(n=71)

2.3(n=95)

26.4(n=106)

The mean percent employment change among all nonmetro counties over the 1950-90 timeperiod was 75.4 percent. Among nonmetro counties with employment change greater than the mean,the average employment change was a 162.4 percent increase. Even among counties below themean, the average change was a 22.4 percent increase. During the first part of the time period (1950-1970), however, the mean among all counties was much lower (11.4 percent), and was negativeamong counties below the mean. The 1950-1970 decades were characterized by large declines inagricultural and mining employment, and movement of population out of rural areas. During the1970s (the decade of the population turnaround) and the 1980s, mean employment change increasedto 50.1 percent, and both groups of counties (those above and below the mean) had positive averageemployment changes.

The 1950-70 period was one of great changes from the extractive economic base.Employment increased only slightly, but the average real median family income increased greatly.Even in the counties below the mean, where average employment decreased, real median familyincome almost doubled. An explanation is that in this period the structural change was from a low-income agricultural economy to higher paid manufacturing jobs, as well as the remaining agriculturebeing more profitable. Because of the large losses in agricultural employment in all counties, netemployment increases were not large, but the average income per family increased considerably.

The 1970-1990 period, on the other hand, had sizeable employment growth, but only slightreal income growth. The 1970s were years of growth, but the 1980s were years of general declineand stagnation. In the latter part of the period, the losses were in the higher paid manufacturing jobs,and the large gains were in the service industries, but not in the high paid producer services (seeTable 2). Also, while manufacturing employment decreased generally in the region, several countieshad net manufacturing increases. The types of jobs, however, were in the lower paying industries.These income/employment growth differences corroborate previous research conclusions that, whileemployment may be growing, it often takes two wage earners in a family to maintain a middle-classlife style (Bluestone and Harrison 1988; Gorham 1991; Levy 1988; Oregon 1984)

Figures 1 to 4 show the distribution of the successful and nonsuccessful counties. Thecounties having employment growth above the mean are grouped similarly in both time periods,generally near the major metropolitan areas of Washington/Baltimore/Wilmington, New York, andNew England. The 1950-1970 employment success counties are somewhat more dispersed than inthe 1970-1990 period, and include counties in western parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New

Page 9: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

8

York. A change in the latter period is that a group of employment-success counties appears ineastern West Virginia. The income-success counties are distributed somewhat similarly, thoughmore concentrated. An interesting difference is that West Virginia in both periods had income-success counties that were not employment- success counties.

Page 10: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

9

The number of Northeast nonmetro counties specializing in each industry sector in each census year1950 to 1990 is shown in Table 2. The number of extractive industry counties declined dramaticallybetween 1950 and 1990. In 1950, 74 counties were specialized in either agriculture, forestry andfisheries, or mining. In 1990, only three counties were specialized in mining, and none inagriculture, forestry and fisheries. The total number of manufacturing-specialized counties increased

Page 11: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

4The two service categories, ubiquitous and producer, were combined because no counties became specialized inproducer services through 1980, and only seven by 1990 (and most of these were concentrated around the Boston metroregion).

10

from 74 in 1950 to 100 in 1970, but dropped to 39 by 1990. In 1950, only four counties werespecialized in services, increasing to 26 in 1970, and 72 by 1990. No counties were specialized inproducer services until 1990, when seven made this transition (most near the Boston metro area.)

TABLE 2Number of Northeast Nonmetropolitan Counties Specialized in each Industry Sector

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990Agriculture, forestry fisheries 53 17 1 0 0Mining 21 13 8 5 3Manufacturing 74 97 100 78 39Ubiquitous Services 4 7 26 38 72Producer Services 0 0 0 0 7Diversified 25 43 42 56 56

A more detailed view of the transitions and their relationship to employment and incomesuccess is shown in Table 3. The tables show particular transitions of industry specialization,categorized by employment and income success (percent change above or below the mean) for the1950-1970 and 1970-1990 periods. In general, these results conform to the Fisher/Clark/Kuznets/Singlemann literature, which shows that economies not shifting to the growing industriesof a particular era (manufacturing in 1950-1970, and services/diversified in 1970-1990) will tendto fall behind or stagnate. Clearly, however, undergoing a transition does not explain all of success,or lack of, as not all counties that make a particular transition are either successful or not.

In each period, the large majority of counties that did not shift from specialization in thetraditional industry (extractive in the early period and manufacturing in the later period) were notsuccessful in both employment and income. A majority of counties initially specialized in extractiveindustries had employment increases below the mean, regardless of type of transition, but thoseshifting to manufacturing and diversified specializations had income changes above the mean.However, even in the 1950-1970 period, there were indications that maintaining a manufacturingspecialization was not sufficient to guarantee “success”. A majority were successful in employmentincreases above the mean, but this was decidedly not the case for income. The shifts to services inboth periods had mixed results. This likely reflects the fact that the service growth was in the lowerpaying ubiquitous category4. In the 1970-1990 period, the counties initially manufacturingspecialized had distinctly weaker performances than the diversified and services counties, in bothemployment and income change. Counties maintaining a diversified economy were generally moresuccessful. Again, however, it is clear that a particular transition did not completely explain success.

Page 12: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

11

TABLE 3Number of Northeast Nonmetropolitan Counties Experiencing Employment and Income Success, 1950-1970,

by Type of Economic Transition.Employment Change 1950-1970

Income Change 1950-1970

Transition Pattern Above Mean Below Mean Above Mean Below MeanExtractive (no shift) n=9 1 8 1 8Extractive 6 Manufacturing n=28 9 19 20 8Extractive 6 Diversified n=28 10 18 16 12Extractive 6 Services n=9 3 6 2 7Manufacturing (no shift) n=67 38 29 20 47Diversified (no shift) n=12 8 4 6 6Diversified 6 Services n=9 5 4 4 5Other transition patternsa n=15 11 4 9 6Total n=177 85 92 78 99

Employment Change 1970-1990 Income Change 1970-1990Transition Pattern Above Mean Below Mean Above Mean Below MeanManufacturing (no shift) n=39 10 29 11 28Manufacturing 6 Diversified n=33 14 19 16 17Manufacturing 6 Services n=28 10 18 10 18Diversified (no shift) n=20 13 7 16 4Diversified 6 Service n=22 11 11 13 9Services (no shift) n=25 11 14 14 11Other transition patternsa n=10 2 8 2 8Total n=177 71 106 82 95aThis category contains a variety of transitions, including counties making three shifts over 20 years, that were toofew to permit statistics analysis.

V. REGRESSION MODELS

To further explore the factors related to success in responding to industrial restructuring,regression models were developed. As Table 3 clearly show, the economic transitions by themselvesdo not entirely explain success or lack thereof. A second set of variables, drawn from previousresearch and location theory, is added to examine the influence of transitions in the presence of otherexplanatory factors. Thus, success in employment and income growth is hypothesized to be afunction not only of the type of economic transition in a county, but also of several characteristicsof the county and county population.

EMPLOYMENT SUCCESS = f ( Economic transition, Metro adjacency status, Median ageof population in base year, Education level of population in base year, Women’s labor forceparticipation rate change)INCOME SUCCESS = f (Economic transition, Metro adjacency status, Median age ofpopulation in base year, Education level of population in base year, Percent employmentchange over the time period, Women’s labor force participation rate change)

Page 13: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

5Large metro areas are those with a population of 1,000,000 or more in 1974. Medium metro areas are those ofpopulation between 250,000 and 1,000,000. Small metro areas are those of population less than 250,000.

12

Logit models will be estimated with employment or income success equal to one if a countyexperienced a percent change in total county employment or real median family income equal to orgreater than the mean percent change of all nonmetro counties in the region, and zero otherwise(from Table 1). Success will be examined for the 1950-1970, and 1970-1990 sub-periods. There areseveral reasons for this division. First, there are distinct differences in the patterns of populationchange between these two time periods, which are related to employment change. The first twodecades of the time period were characterized by the movement of population out of rural areastoward cities, while the 1970s were characterized by relatively rapid movement of population intorural areas.

Second, employment trends in individual industries were different in the two time periods.During the 1950s and 1960s, employment in agriculture declined rapidly as a result of labor-savingtechnologies (Reimund and Petrulis 1988). Mining employment declined during the 1950s and1960s due to technological change, increased competition, and reduced demand, then coal miningemployment rebounded in the 1970s due to the oil crisis (Weber, Castle and Shriver 1988; Weber1995). Growth in the service sectors did not begin to accelerate until the 1960s, and shifts towardservices are not common until after 1970 (Smith 1993). Growth in nonmetro manufacturingemployment during the 1950s and 1960s was substantial, as manufacturing decentralized out ofurban centers toward rural areas with cheaper land and labor (Barkley 1993). During the 1970s and1980s, manufacturing industry began to move out of the Northeast, causing dramatic declines inmanufacturing employment, particularly in the 1980s.

Third, using the two sub-periods separately allows the examination of transition categorieswhich occurred in too few counties over the whole 1950-1990 time period. For example, only threenonmetro counties remained specialized in mining over the whole time period, so these countiescannot be analyzed as an independent group. However, between 1950 and 1970, nine nonmetrocounties remained specialized in extractive industries (one in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, andeight in mining). Likewise, only two nonmetro counties remained specialized in services over thewhole time period, but between 1970 and 1990, 25 nonmetro counties remained specialized inservices. The regression models will therefore contain different sets of transitions.

The economic transitions are measured as dummy variables, each equal to one if the countyexperienced the particular economic transition, and zero otherwise. The transitions are identifiedthrough objective one. Only those transitions that occurred in a number of counties sufficient foranalysis are included, with all others grouped together. The use of the transitions is based onconclusions by Clark (1940), Kuznets (1966) and Singlemann (1978) that economic progress onlycomes through transitions from the previous structure to the growing sectors of a particular era. Inthis context a key transition hypothesized to relate to “success” in the first time period is fromextractive-based activities to manufacturing. In the second time period, greater success should berelated to transitions from manufacturing to service or diversified structures.

Measures of adjacency classify nonmetro counties as being adjacent to a small, medium,large, or not adjacent to, a metro area5, based on 1974 Beale Codes. Counties adjacent to metro areasare expected to be more successful in terms of employment and income growth. Rapidly growingproducer services generally have agglomerated in metro areas, and decentralization of these

Page 14: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

13

producer services would most likely occur in adjacent nonmetro areas (Smith 1993; Glasmeier andHowland 1995). Adjacent nonmetro counties also may have the advantage over nonadjacent countiesin the decentralization of high-technology manufacturing. Such manufacturing facilities requirehighly skilled labor, and adjacent counties can offer such labor as well as cheaper land, lower taxes,and proximity to urban markets. Recent research supports these hypotheses about such “spillover”effects (Barkley et al. 1994; Henry and Drabenstott 1996). On the other hand, Tweeten andBrinkman (1976, p. 435) suggested that the largest metropolitan areas will not have a positiveinfluence on the success of adjacent nonmetro counties. They argued that cities of over one millionpopulation experience diseconomies in providing services for and meeting the needs of the metropopulation, and thus are ineffective growth centers.

The next set of variables - -population age and education, and women’s labor forceparticipation -- are based on standard location theory (Richardson 1979), which identifies keyproduction factors driving industry location. These variables are proxies for the availability andquality of labor. That is, can an area supply the needed labor? The availability and quality of a locallabor force is important during changes in the economic structure. Skill requirements change, andthere must be a fit for the newer industries to take hold. For example, for industries seeking lowerskilled workers to perform routine manufacturing operations, or fill low-level service positions, theavailability of workers is the critical issue. For higher technology manufacturing, or producerservices, a more highly educated labor force is demanded.

The first labor force measure, median age of the population in the base year, is expected tohave a negative impact. In many rural counties, the median age of the population is increasingbecause much of the working age population has migrated out of the county, and the phenomenonof “aging in place” characterizes the demography. Such counties would be less successful inattracting economic activity. The exception may be counties with large retirement populations,which may have experienced growth in many services for the aging population.

The median education of the population in the base year is expected to have a positive effecton employment and income growth. Industries with low skill requirements also experienced growthduring the time period, so the relationship may not be linear. In the first time period (1950-1970),counties with low education levels may still have experienced substantial growth in manufacturing,but in types which required low-skilled labor. In the second time period (1970-1990), though,growth in low-skilled manufacturing was not as widespread, and the growing industries requireda more highly-skilled workforce. At the same time, the considerable growth of the broad servicesindustries in the 1970-1990 period would provide increased employment opportunities for lowerskilled workers.

In addition to the standard factors expected to influence employment and income change,a major social change occurred after World War II. This is the increase in women working outsidethe home, particularly married women. The percentage of women participating in the labor forceincreased from 39 percent in 1965 to 58 percent in 1993 (Hayghe 1994). Both labor demand andlabor supply issues will be involved in determining whether or not this factor influences theemployment and income success of a county. Within the context of labor supply as a factor ingrowth of economic activity, the availability of women is a significant factor. As discussed earlier,lower paying service industries grew the most in rural counties, and these tend to employ morewomen. Also, there is evidence that lighter assembly locates where women are available (Smith andBarkley 1989). On the labor demand side, as there is growth in the industries that employ more

Page 15: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

14

women, this would attract them into the labor force, leading to increased employment and income.The increasing role of services in the economy is particularly relevant here, as women morefrequently work in service industries. (Economic Research Service 1992). As rural job opportunitiesdeclined in the traditionally male-oriented industries, rural families increasingly relied on theearnings of women. The expectation is that increased women’s labor force participation willpositively contribute to employment and income success.

The percent change in total county employment is expected to positively influence incomesuccess. Areas that experienced employment growth would also experience income growth. Thechoice of this variable is based on conclusions by Clark (1940), Kuznets (1966) and Singlemann(1978) that the new and growing industry sectors at any given time are associated with newer(higher) skills and thus higher wages. In the 1950-70 period, this would have been in manufacturing,and in the 1970-90 period, in services and perhaps high tech manufacturing. If the transition to suchindustries in the Northeast follows this pattern, then we should find a positive relationship, with theimplication that the new jobs are in higher wage industries.

VI. REGRESSION RESULTS

Employment Success

The regression results for employment success in Northeast nonmetro counties between1950-1970 and 1970-1990 are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Model I in each table examinesonly the relationship between the type of economic transition and likelihood of success. From 1950-70, considering only the effects of transition type, the counties that were initially extractive-basedwere less likely to be successful than those with a diversified base. The least likely to be successfulwere counties that made no shift from the extractive base. Counties shifting to a service base, orthose that remained in manufacturing, were not significantly different than diversified counties. Anexplanation may be that those counties initially extractive-based in 1950 did not have the factors thatwould attract the growing industries of this period. As Figure 1 shows, those counties withemployment growth below the mean (“unsuccessful”) are located in more isolated, and mountainous,parts of the region.

From 1970-90, the counties not shifting from the “traditional”manufacturing base were theleast likely to be successful. The manufacturing counties shifting to a service base also wereunsuccessful relative to diversified economies. In these counties, the service shift resulted more froma decrease in manufacturing employment, rather than an increase in service employment, thussimply shifting proportions. Counties shifting from manufacturing to a diversified structure, andthose starting out and remaining in the diversified and service categories were comparable to thediversified counties in success.

The important point is that when examining only the type of transition, there is evidence thatthe historical findings for nations as a whole also hold at the county level -- a successful economyis one that makes the transition from the traditional industries to the “modern” ones. Furthermore,the results clearly indicate that a diversified economic structure is important to success. The lowpsuedo R2 indicates, however, that there are other factors besides type of transition that explainsuccess.

Page 16: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

6While the age squared term was not significant, graphical analysis of the data indicated that the positive influenceexisted only for the younger workforce between the ages of 20 and 38 years. This makes sense during a time ofconsiderable manufacturing growth, when such workers would be in demand.

15

TABLE 4Regression Results of Employment Success, 1950 - 1970, Northeast Nonmetro Counties

Variable Name Model I Model IIIntercept 0.693a

(0.612)-10.653***

(3.296)Economic Transitionb

Ext (no shift)

Ext-Mnfg

Ext-Div

Ext-Serv

Mnfg (no shift)

Div-Serv

Other Transitions

-2.773**(1.225)-1.440**(0.734)-1.281*(0.728)-1.386(0.935)-0.423(0.660)-0.470(0.908)0.318

(0.846)

-0.508(1.445)-0.488(0.874)-0.451(0.880)0.096

(1.083)-0.152(0.748)0.630

(1.103)1.114

(0.956)Adjacencyc

Medium

Small

Nonadjacent

-1.245**(0.640)-1.153(0.752)-2.150***(0.623)

Median Age 1950 0.212***(0.074)

Median Education 1950 0.538**(0.252)

Change in Female Labor Force Participation 1950-70 0.013*(0.007)

Chi SquarePseudo R2

N

18.99***.097

177

53.82***.240

177aParameter Estimate and Standard Error; Significance Level ***=0.01, **=0.05, *=0.10bBase of comparison is Diversified (no shift)cBase of comparison is adjacent to large metro area

Model II investigates success in the presence of both the type of transition and the socio-economic factors described above. The inclusion of the other factors results in the transitions notbeing statistically significant in explaining employment success in 1950-70. The keys to employmentsuccess in this period were the measures of markets and labor force -- (1) counties being adjacentto a large metro area; (2) an older population in the younger working age years6; (3) a more educatedpopulation; and (4) greater female labor force participation.

Page 17: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

16

TABLE 5Regression Results of Employment Success, 1970-1990, Northeast Nonmetro Counties

Variable Name Model I Model IIIntercept 0.619a

(0.469)-14.372***

(4.235)Economic Transitionb

Mnfg (no shift)

Mnfg-Div

Mnfg-Serv

Div-Serv

Serv (no shift)

Other

-1.684***(0.595)-0.924(0.586)-1.207**(0.613)-0.619(0.634)-0.860(0.618)-2.005**(0.919)

-1.858***(0.683)-1.016(0.656)-2.023***(0.700)-1.050(0.729)-1.826**(0.779)-0.996(1.108)

Adjacencyc

Medium

Small

Nonadjacent

-1.118*(0.587)-1.390(0.709)0.033

(0.533)Median Age 1970 0.012

(0.060)Median Education 1970 1.358***

(0.309)Change Female Labor Force Participation 1970-90 0.0210

(0.013)Chi SquarePseudo R2

N

11.82**.063

177

42.56***.194

177aParameter Estimate and Standard Error; Significance Level ***=0.01, **=0.05, *=0.10 bBase of comparison is Diversified (no shift)cBase of comparison is adjacent to large metro area

In the 1970-90 period, however, the effects of the type of transition remain statisticallysignificant when controlling for other county characteristics. The most consistent result is thatcounties remaining specialized in manufacturing were less likely to be successful at generatingemployment growth. Also, there is evidence that shifts to a service specialization did not lead tosuccess. That is, the type of service economy, or the fact that such a specialization may have resultedfrom simply a decline in other employment, indicate that rural areas may not benefit from the generalservice growth in the economy.

Adjacency to a large metro area continues to result in greater likelihood of employmentsuccess. This is contrary to the suggestion by Tweeten and Brinkman (1976) that large metro areasdo not function efficiently as growth centers, but supports the more recent findings of Barkley et al.(1994) and Henry and Drabenstott (1996).

Age and women’s labor force participation are no longer significant factors in the 1970-90period. Whereas a younger work force would be more advantageous when heavier manual-orientedmanufacturing industries are prevalent, such labor is less necessary in the modern economy. (And

Page 18: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

17

in this period, much of the region had lost, or was in the process of losing a large proportion of itstraditional manufacturing base.) The lack of influence of women’s labor force participation is moredifficult to explain. The expectation would be that the growth of the service sector in this periodwould demand more women in the labor force. One explanation may be the fact that in many ruralcounties the increased dominance of the service sector resulted from declines in other industries, andnot from sizeable growth itself. Thus, there would not be an increased demand for labor; the servicejobs that women would take were already occupied. Another explanation may be that increasingwomen’s labor force participation had run its course; that the change in the rate of participation wastoo small to matter. Hayghe (1994) points out this trend. The annual growth rate in women’s laborforce participation increased through the 1970s, but decreased considerably in the 1980s. Finally, andimportantly, education becomes a more statistically significant positive influence on employmentsuccess in the 1970-90 period, likely reflecting the changing labor force requirements in the modernhigh-tech and information-oriented economy.

Income Success

The regression results for income success -- percent change in real median family income -- areshown in Tables 6 and 7. The effects of economic transitions on income success again are apparent,and support the hypothesis suggested by the Fisher/Clark/Kuznets/Singelmann literature. The resultsfrom Model I, where only the economic transitions are included, show that the counties that did notshift out of the traditional economic base were the least likely to have income success in both timeperiods. From 1950-70, counties remaining extractive-specialized were statistically significantly lesslikely to have had income success. For the 1970-90 period, the same was especially true ofmanufacturing-specialized counties, but also included all the transition types except diversified. Inthe 1970-90 period, the income effects of transitions are similar to those for employment success; adiversified economic base was related to greater likelihood of success.

When the other county characteristics are included, slightly different results emerge, but withsimilar conclusions. The transitions remained significant factors in the 1950-70 period, with thecounties making the transition from an extractive to a manufacturing or diversified specializationmore likely to have had income success. From 1970-90, however, the transitions were not significantfactors in income success when other variables were included. An explanation may be that by thelater period the structural shifts out of the relatively low paying extractive industries had beencompleted, and income differences among industries in rural areas were not significant.

Counties more likely to have had income success in 1950-70 were the most rural (adjacentto small metro areas or nonadjacent), contrary to the results for employment success. An explanationis that these counties were initially extractive-specialized, with lower incomes, so similar incomeincreases will show up as larger percentage increases in these counties. By the 1970-90 period,however, relationships to metro areas appeared to make little difference, certainly for the most ruralcounties.

Age was a positive influence on income success in 1950-70, as with employment, but againonly in the younger working age range of 20-38 years. In the 1970-90 period, however, an olderpopulation in that age range was a negative influence, but reversed thereafter, perhaps indicating apositive influence of experience. This may also indicate the effect of in-migrating retirees to higheramenity rural counties. Such retirees tend to have higher incomes than the average of the receivingpopulation.

Page 19: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

18

TABLE 6Regression Results of Real Median Family Income Success, 1950 - 1970, Northeast Nonmetro Counties

Variable Name Model I Model IIIntercept -284E-17a

(0.577)55.132**

(25.270)Economic Transitionb

Ext (no shift)

Ext-Mnfg

Ext-Div

Ext-Serv

Mnfg (no shift)

Div-Serv

Other

-2.079*(1.208)0.916

(0.713)0.288

(0.692)-1.253(0.988)-0.854(0.636)-0.223(0.885)0.406

(0.782)

1.809(3.074)3.685***

(1.076)2.912***

(1.054)0.350

(1.379)0.026

(0.860)-0.660(1.681)0.209

(1.061)Adjacencyc

Medium

Small

Nonadjacent

-0.254(0.805)3.001***

(1.032)1.975***

(0.803)Median Age 1950 0.452***

(0.105)(Median Age 1950)2 dMedian Education 1950 -15.195***

(5.436)(Median Education 1950)2 0.778***

(0.283)Change Female Labor Force Participation 1950-70 0.017*

(0.010)Employment Change 1950-70 0.068***

(0.014)Chi SquarePseudo R2

N

24.440***.121

177

110.21***.384

177a Parameter Estimate and Standard Error; Significance Level ***=0.01, **=0.05, *=0.10b Base of comparison is Diversified (no shift)c Base of comparison is adjacent to large metro aread Inclusion of this variable causes age to be nonsignificant.

Page 20: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

19

TABLE 7Regression Results of Real Median Family Income Success, 1970 - 1990, Northeast Nonmetro Counties

Variable Name Model I Model IIIntercept 1.386**a

(0.559)66.078***

(20.470)Economic Transitionb

Mnfg (no shift)

Mnfg-Div

Mnfg-Serv

Div-Serv

Serv (no shift)

Other

-2.321***-0.687-1.447**(0.659)-1.974***(0.684)-1.019-0.031-1.145*(0.689)-2.773***(0.968)

-0.687(1.032)-0.179(0.998)0.069

(1.058)-0.031(1.052)-0.657(1.129)-2.151(1.871)

Adjacencyc

Medium

Small

Nonadjacent

-1.450*(0.866)-0.621(1.001)-0.546(0.819)

Median Age 1970 -4.097***(1.298)

(Med Age 1970)2 0.070***(0.022)

Median Education 1970 -0.903***(0.352)

Change Female Labor Force Participation 1970-90 -0.020(0.018)

Employment Change 1970-90 0.097***(0.017)

Chi SquarePseudo R2 N

21.714***.109

177

121.33***.407

177a Parameter Estimate and Standard Error; Significance Level ***=0.01, **=0.05, *=0.10b Base of comparison is Diversified (no shift)c Base of comparison is adjacent to large metro area

Median education was negatively related to the likelihood of income success in both periods,contrary to its effect on employment. In the earlier period, examination of the effects of the squaredterm shows that the negative effect ends as education rises above 10 years of schooling. Anexplanation is that the growing manufacturing industries in the earlier period required mainly lowskilled workers, who are found in greater concentration in the smaller, more rural counties. Thisrelationship appears to persist in the later period, when low wage service and routine assemblymanufacturing dominate these sectors of rural economies. This result illustrates a continuingconundrum in rural areas. The available human resources may attract jobs, but they are notnecessarily the jobs that provide the desired incomes.

Page 21: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

20

The impact of female labor force participation rates on income success is similar to that foremployment. There is a slight positive influence in the earlier period, but not significant in 1970-90.Explanations may be that either participation rates had reached the level where further increases didnot have significant impact, or that while the growing service sector in rural areas may provide moreemployment opportunities for women, it does not necessarily lead to significant increases in familyincome. This may be a result of the combination of low wages in this sector and the loss of higherpaying jobs in the traditional male-oriented industries, as discussed in Oregon Joint LegislativeCommittee Report (1984).

Finally, total employment change over the time period is a strongly positive influence oncounty income success in both time periods. Thus, increasing employment opportunities, regardlessof the industries in which they occur, are related to improvements in median family income.

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The historical course of economic development has been a sequential shift of employmentfrom agriculture and other extractive industries to manufacturing, and finally to services (Singelmann1978). Fisher (1935) believed that these shifts are an inescapable reflection of economic progress,and Clark (1940), Kuznets (1966) and Singelmann (1978) concluded that such shifts are necessaryto reach higher levels of income and economic growth. However, in rural areas these changes fromthe historical economic bases cause continual concern about employment opportunities and thegeneral economic and social welfare. The particular concern is about the ability of rural areas toadjust to the changes and to maintain or increase employment and income. More recent research hasfocused on the need to maintain a more diverse economic structure. Such diversity has been foundto lead to lower unemployment, increases in employment and income, and greater stability.

The purpose of this study was to examine the specific types of economic transitions thatoccurred in Northeast nonmetro counties from 1950 to 1990, and to determine factors related to thelevel of "success" in adapting to these transitions. Success was defined as having percent changes inemployment or real median family income greater than or equal to the mean for all Northeastnonmetro counties.

The study used Census of Population data to examine economic transitions from 1950 to1990, focusing on the 1950-1970 and 1970-1990 sub-periods. The major structural transitions foundwere from extractive (agriculture, mining, forestry) specializations to manufacturing in the 1950-70period, and then out of manufacturing and into services and diversified specializations after 1970.The results showed that the perception of greatly declining nonmetro employment opportunities andincomes because of this economic restructuring was not true in the Northeast. From 1950 to 1990,only 28 of 177 nonmetro counties had absolute employment declines. The average countyemployment increase was 75 percent, and the average county real median family income increasedby 144 percent. The results also showed that the type of economic transition influenced success. Interestingly,while shifts out of the traditional economic base were important, the transition associated with thegreatest employment and income success was a shift to a diversified economic structure. Althoughservices have been the growth areas of the economy, shifts to service specializations per se were notnecessarily related to employment or income success. One reason is that a seeming shift to servicesoften was because of declines in other sectors. A second reason, particularly related to incomesuccess, is that the types of services prevalent and growing in rural areas are lower paying. From1950-70, structural transitions associated with less likelihood of success were counties initially

Page 22: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

21

extractive-specialized and counties remaining so. From 1970-90, counties with the least likelihoodof success were those remaining in manufacturing, and those initially in manufacturing. Thus, thereis some support for the Fisher/Clark/Kuznets/Singlemann hypothesis that economies must shift fromtraditional industries to be successful. At the same time, the key “transition” associated with successseems to be shifting to a diversified economy.

The transitions themselves, however, were not the sole influences on employment and incomesuccess. Metropolitan adjacency plus quantity and quality of the labor force, also were importantinfluences. The position effects of adjacency to large[r] metropolitan areas supports recent findingson spillover affects. A working age population in the 20-38 age range was positively related toemployment and income success in the earlier period, when manufacturing was the growth industry,but age was not an influence on employment in the later period when services were the growthindustry. In the 1970-90 period, age was a negative influence on income success, but only throughthe younger working age years, perhaps indicating an effect of more wealthy in-migrating retirees.Education was a positive influence on employment change in both periods, but was negatively relatedto income changes in both periods. The negative education effects ended after about the tenth grade,however. This may imply that the growing industries in rural areas were seeking lower educated orlower skill workers, whether this was the growing manufacturing in the earlier period or the growingservice industries in the later period. The increase in women’s labor force participation rate positivelyinfluenced employment and income success, but only in the 1950-70 period. The lack of influencein the 1970-90 period lends support to the contention that the growing rural service sector, whichemploys largely women, may provide employment, but may not improve family income whentraditionally male-oriented jobs are lost in other sectors.

One major conclusion to be drawn from this study is that the lament that losing an agriculturaland natural resource employment base, or a traditional manufacturing base, is the “problem” andcause of rural decline is not supported by our results. On the contrary, nonmetro counties that did notshift employment specializations from the “old” to the “new” and growing industrial sectors werethe least likely to be successful in increasing employment and income. The results also support thehistorical findings for nations as a whole, that economies that do not shift to growing industries willfall behind. At the same time, a second major conclusion is that counties with more diversifiedeconomic structures were most “successful”. This was true even in earlier decades in the Northeast.

The results of this study also are relevant to rural economic development policy. The resultsshow that rural economies which shift to the growing industrial sectors during a given time perioddo better in terms of employment and income. Nevertheless, rural economic development effortscommonly focus on maintaining past economic specializations -- recruitment of manufacturing orincreasing the profitability of agriculture. However, rather than attempting to resist change in thetraditional economic base, or lamenting its occurrence, rural areas should attempt to facilitate change;to determine what the new industries need, and help prepare the local economy and residents for theseindustries. In particular, rural economic development efforts that attempt to diversify local economiesare supported by this study.

REFERENCES

Barkley, David L. "Manufacturing Decentralization: Has the Filtering-Down Process Fizzled Out?"In Barkley, David L. (ed.) Economic Adaptation: Alternatives for Nonmetropolitan Areas.Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

Page 23: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

22

Barkley, David L., Mark S. Henry, and Shuming Bao. “Metropolitan Growth, Boone or Bane toNearby Rural Areas?” Choices, Fourth Quarter (1994), 14-18.

Beale, Calvin L. “Quantitative Dimensions of Decline and Stability Among Rural Communities.”In Morrison, Peter A. (ed.) A Taste of the County: A Collection of Calvin Beale’s Writings.University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1990.

Bender, Lloyd D., Bernal L. Green, Thomas F. Hady, John A. Kuehn, Marlys K. Nelson, Leon B.Perkinson, and Peggy J. Ross. The Diverse Social and Economic Structure ofNonmetropolitan America. USDA-ERS: Rural Development Research Report No. 49, 1985.

Bloomquist, Leonard E., and Christina Gringeri, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Cynthia Truelove.“Work Structures and Rural Poverty.” In Rural Sociological Task Force on Persistent RuralPoverty, (ed.) Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

Bluestone, Barry, and Bennett Harrison. The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring and thePolarizing of America. New York: Basic Books, 1988.

Board, John, and Charles Sutcliffe. “Risk and Income Tradeoffs in Regional Policy: A PortfolioTheoretic Approach.” Journal of Regional Science 31 (2) (1991), 191-210.

Brown, David L. and Kenneth L. Deavers. "Rural Change and the Rural Economic Policy Agendafor the 1980s." In Brown, David L. et al. (eds.) Rural Economic Development in the 1980s:Prospects for the Future. Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic ResearchService, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development Research Report No. 69, 1988.

Brown, Deborah J., and James Pheasant. “A Sharpe Portfolio Approach to Regional EconomicInstability.” Journal of Regional Science 25 (1985), 51-63.

Brown, Deborah J., and James Pheasant. “Sources of Cyclical Unemployment Instability in RuralCounties.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69 (4) (1987), 819-827.

Clark, Colin. The Conditions of Economic Progress. London: Macmillan, 1940.Cook, Peggy J. and Thomas F. Hady. "Updating the ERS County Typology: A View from the

1980s." Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, Staff Report No. AGES9327, 1993.

Crandall, Robert W. Manufacturing on the Move. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1993.Drabenstott,. Mark, and Tim R. Smith. “Finding Rural Success: The New Rural Economic

Landscape and Its Implications.” In Castle, Emery N. The Changing American Countryside:Rural People and Places, 180-196. Lawrence, Kansas: The University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. “Rural Employment UpSlightly.” Rural Conditions and Trends 3(3), 1992.

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Rural Conditions and Trends4(3), 1993.

Falk, William W. and Thomas A. Lyson. "Rural America and the Industrial Policy Debate." in Flora,Cornelia G. and James A. Christenson (eds.) Rural Policies for the 1990s. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 1991.

Fisher, A.G.B. The Clash of Progress and Security. London: Macmillan, 1935.Glasmeier, Amy K., and Marie Howland. From Combines to Computers: Rural Services and

Development in the Age of Information Technology.” Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press, 1995.

Gorham, Lucy. “The Slowdown in Nonmetropolitan Development: The Impact of Economic Forcesand the Effect on the Distribution of Wages.” Paper presented at the Conference onPopulation Change and the Future of Rural America, Wye Plantation, Maryland, May 30-June1, 1991.

Page 24: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

23

Gorham, Lucy. “The Growing Problem of Lower Earnings in Rural America.” In Duncan, Cynthia(ed.), Rural Poverty in America. New York: Auburn House, 1992.

Harper, Deborah J., and Larry V. St.Louis. “Regional Economic Diversification and Efficiency:Baumol’s Likely Lower Confidence Limit Measure of Risk.” The Review of Regional Studies29 (2) (1999), 197-211.

Hayghe, Howard V. “Are Women Leaving the Labor Force?” Monthly Labor Review 117(7) (1994),37-39.

Henry, Mark S. "The Rural Economic Gap: Fact or Fiction?" In Barkley, David L. (ed.) EconomicAdaptation: Alternatives for Nonmetropolitan Areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

Henry, Mark S. and Mark Drabenstott. “A New Micro View of the U.S. Rural Economy.” FederalReserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review 81(2): 53-70, 1996.

Hines, Fred K., David L. Brown, and John M. Zimmer. Social and Economic Characteristics of thePopulation in Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1970. Economic Research Service, UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 272, 1975.

Kreahling, Kathleen S. Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetro Counties in a ChangingEconomy. Masters Thesis, Penn State University, Department of Agricultural Economics andRural Sociology, 1994.

Kuznets, Simon. Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, and Spread. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1966.

Lande, Paul S. “Regional Industrial Structure and Economic Growth and Instability.” Journal ofRegional Science 34 (3) (1994), 343-360.

Levy, Frank. Dollars and Dreams: The Changing American Income Distribution. New York: W.W. Norton, 1988.

Lichter, Daniel T., and Diane K. McLaughlin. “Changing Economic Opportunities, Family Structure,and Poverty in Rural Areas.” Rural Sociology 60(4) (1995), 688-706.

Long, Celeste A. "Patterns of Rural Employment Growth and Decline." Paper presented at theAnnual Southern Regional Science Association Meeting, Morgantown, WV, 1988.

Malizia, Emil E., and Shanzi Ke. “The Influence of Economic Diversity on Unemployment andStability”. Journal of Regional Science 33 (3) (1993), 221-235.

Miller, James P. and Herman Bluestone. “Prospects for Service Sector Employment Growth inNonmetro America.” In Brown, David L. et al. (eds.) Rural Economic Development in the1980s: Prospects for the Future. USDA-ERS: Rural Development Research Report no. 69,1988.

Mills, Edwin S. “The Location of Economic Activity in Rural and Nonmetropolitan United States.”In Castle, Emery N. The Changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places.Lawrence, Kansas: The University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Oregon Joint Legislative Committee on Trade and Economic Development. “Declining Numbers of‘Family Wage’ Jobs: A Threat to Oregon’s Economic Health?” Staff Report, July. Salem,OR: The Committee, 1984.

Porterfield, Shirley. “Service Sector Offers More Jobs, Lower Pay.” Rural Development Perspectives6(3) (1990), 2-7.

Reed, David A. The Winnowing: Economic Change in Rural America. New York: The HudsonInstitute, 1989.

Reid, J. Norman and Richard W. Long. "Rural Policy Objectives: Defining Problems and ChoosingApproaches." In Brown, David L. et al. (eds.) Rural Economic Development in the 1980's:

Page 25: Economic Restructuring in the Northeast: Nonmetroaese.psu.edu/nercrd/publications/rdp/rdp13.pdf · 2016-12-12 · Successful Adjustment to Economic Restructuring in the Nonmetro Northeast:

24

Prospects for the Future. Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Rural Development Research Report no. 69, 1988.

Reimund, Donn, and Mindy Petrulis. “Performance of the Agricultural Sector.” In Brown, David L.et al. (eds.) Rural Economic Development in the 1980s: Prospects for the Future. Agricultureand Rural Economy Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Rural Development ResearchReport No. 69, 1988.

Richardson, Harry W. Regional Economics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1979.Schoening, Niles C., and Larry E. Sweeney. “Proactive Industrial Development Strategies and

Portfolio Analysis.” The Review of Regional Studies 22 (3) (1992), 227-238.Singlemann, Joachim. From Agriculture to Services: The Transformation of Industrial Employment.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1978.Smith, Stephen M. "Service Industries in the Rural Economy: The Role and Potential

Contributions." In David L. Barkley (ed.) Economic Adaptation: Alternatives forNonmetropolitan Areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.

Smith, Stephen M. and David L. Barkley. “Local Economic Impacts of High TechnologyManufacturing in the Nonmetropolitan West.” Western Rural Development Center, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR, WREP 98 (March) 1989.

Smith, Stephen M. and Cosette M. Gibson. “Industrial Diversification in Nonmetropolitan Countiesand Its Effect on Economic Stability.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 13(2)(1988),193-201.

Taylor, James Agyei Kurankyi. A Comparative Study of Regional Economic Growth and StructuralChanges in the U.S. with Emphasis on the West, 1920-1980. Master's Thesis, University ofIdaho, 1983.

Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. “Labor Markets, Industrial Structure, and Poverty: A TheoreticalDiscussion and Empirical Example.” Rural Sociology. 52(1) (1987), 56-74.

Tweeten, Luther and George L. Brinkman. Micropolitan Development: Theory and Practice ofGreater Rural Economic Development. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1976.

Weber, Bruce A., Emery N. Castle, and Ann L. Shriver. “Performance of Natural ResourceIndustries.” In Brown, David L. et al. (eds.) Rural Economic Development in the 1980s:Prospects for the Future. Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Rural Development Research Report no. 69, 1988.

Weber, Bruce A. “Extractive Industries and Rural-Urban Economic Interdependence.” In Castle,Emery N. The Changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places. Lawrence, Kansas:The University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Williams, Donald R. “Structural Change and the Aggregate Poverty Rate.” Demography 28(2)(1991), 323-332.